YouTube now adding VP9 option to popular videos - Page 2

zerowalker · 14th May 2014, 23:11

The point in VP9 in my thought isn't to actually go head to head with HEVC, as in Reality, HEVC will most likely "Win the war".

However, VP9 is something i am looking forward to on Youtube and similar sites, if it can bring better quality overall, even if it uses lower bitrate, i am happy.
And it clearly seems like it will be able to do it in the future, as Youtube's settings on H264 are extreme, while the VP9 settings probably are not as flexible, leaving them at Okay settings.

So in the end, I and probably others, hope for the Internet Videos to increase in Quality, and also Reduce in Size (I don't care about that however).

Nintendo Maniac 64 · 14th May 2014, 23:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monarc

Already tried mpv? http://mpv.io/installation/

I have never tried it on windows, but there are win builds. It's a command line player, only minimal gui.

I've tried the program before but not with VP9. It doesn't seem to really do any better than MPC-HC; when I'm not overclocked there are less frame-drops but there's more drastic audio/video de-syncing (likely due to the reduced frame-dropping).

foxyshadis · 14th May 2014, 23:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nintendo Maniac 64

EDIT 3:My theory is that MPC-HC's VP9 decoder is taking advantage of SSSE3 which is something my Brisbane lacks, and therefore Chrome most likely just isn't using SSSE3. I'll be able to test this theory more-so when I get my sister's soon-to-be old laptop in 2 weeks since it has a 1.6GHz Core Duo (not Core 2 Duo) which also supports SSSE3 but has IPC only on level with my Brisbane.

Core Duo has only up to SSE3, no SSSE3 support. That first showed up with Core 2. Most Core Duo laptops are upgradeable to a Core 2 Duo Merom, though, if you have one lying around.

Nintendo Maniac 64 · 14th May 2014, 23:46

Forgive me for sounding facepalm-worthy, but I am a 1337 haxor! I have no idea how I did it, but YouTube encoded my F-Zero GX test video into VP9 even though my video only has 80 views.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLxHjixnf3c

Unlike the other two videos I previously linked to, this one is only 4 minutes long so it's quick to download. However, due to the fact that I added in audio after-the-fact, it is not optimal for testing any audio/video de-sync. Also it's only available in 720p, maybe I'll upload 1080p in the future.

You can compare the YouTube encoding to the original uploaded file here:
http://www.mediafire.com/watch/s525y...20_@_30fps.mp4

-------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by foxyshadis

Core Duo has only up to SSE3, no SSSE3 support. That first showed up with Core 2. Most Core Duo laptops are upgradeable to a Core 2 Duo Merom, though, if you have one lying around.

Hmm, I could have sworn that Yonah also supported SSSE3...

Nevertheless Yonah uses Socket M and most Merom CPUs use Socket P, and I have no spare Socket M nor Socket P CPUs.

To put things into perspective, my 2.5GHz Brisbane and my HTPC's 2GHz Merom are the fastest CPUs I own.

zerowalker · 14th May 2014, 23:56

Nice, though it may be cause you seem to be rather famous on Youtube (compared to me you are Obama;P), so perhaps that has some influence in the System where it picks it's choices, just a guess though.

My own Videos are non-VP9 except for 3, which have 20-70k views, everything else (have checked pretty many) should be h264 sadly.

Nintendo Maniac 64 · 15th May 2014, 00:04

I've edited in the download link for the MP4 I originally uploaded to YouTube into my previous post so that you can compare the uploaded file to the YouTube encoding.

-----------------------

My videos only have that many views because the content of my videos are what Nintendo calls "evergreen", that is the videos in question constantly get a steady stream of views that build up over the years which makes a difference because most of my videos are 3 years old or more. Unlike people with lots of YouTube subscribers, my videos get very very few views in the beginning and then start to get more views per day over time as they place higher in search results.

In other words, people search out the content the videos that I just happen to upload rather than follow me and watch my videos because I upload them.

pieter3d · 15th May 2014, 00:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nintendo Maniac 64

If I watch a VP9 video through Chrome then the CPU usage is pretty much the same as it is on my Brisbane, but if I watch the video through MPC-HC (64bit) then the CPU usage is cut in half!

If the VP9 stream is encoded using more than one tile, the decoder can use multiple threads, multi-core decode. That would explain the CPU usage being cut in half.

xooyoozoo · 15th May 2014, 01:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nintendo Maniac 64

Forgive me for sounding facepalm-worthy, but I am a 1337 haxor! I have no idea how I did it, but YouTube encoded my F-Zero GX test video into VP9 even though my video only has 80 views.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLxHjixnf3c

On 2.8ghz IVB-EP with master-git ffmpeg, outputting to null gives

Code:

-threads 1
182 fps:  webm-247
240 fps:  mp4-136

-threads 4 
420 fps:  webm-247
632 fps:  mp4-136

Nintendo Maniac 64 · 15th May 2014, 02:39

I must say that fmt136 h.264 on my F-Zero GX video looks like utter crap, especially around the 2 minute mark.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pieter3d

If the VP9 stream is encoded using more than one tile, the decoder can use multiple threads, multi-core decode. That would explain the CPU usage being cut in half.

It's using two threads in Chrome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xooyoozoo

On 2.8ghz IVB-EP with master-git ffmpeg, outputting to null gives

Code:

-threads 1
182 fps:  webm-247
240 fps:  mp4-136

-threads 4 
420 fps:  webm-247
632 fps:  mp4-136

This is in-line with what I'm seeing on my HTPC's Core 2 Duo; decoding VP9 only requires about 50% more CPU utilization than h.264 does on a dual core CPU with SSSE3.

zerowalker · 16th May 2014, 07:13

I see, i guess it comes from the Tile decoding, and since they use different kinds, they clearly should differ.
I am guessing x265 is primary using one core, and then using the second if it overflows, instead of using them in parallel.

VP9 my be depending on the Tiles, and i have no idea how these work, but perhaps if one is taking a lot of space (or whatever they do), the assigned core will get loaded, while the other may chill, and this may be going up and down throughout the video.

This pretty much render it useless to compare the CPU load on cores.

Oh also, on Youtube, is there a way to search for VP9 videos?
I know you can search (or at least you could) for Webm videos Only, but sadly everything is Webm now, and that's VP8 at 240/360p, making it meaningless filtering it down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ghgbycqb92c

Here is another VP9 clip where it's sick how the bitrate differs, VP9 get's less than half, making it looks much worse (still quite good if you think about the bitrate though).
Don't understand why the bitrate is so Dynamic between clips, i thought they had a VBR at a certain range.

Nintendo Maniac 64 · 16th May 2014, 09:33

If you want more VP9 videos just find some popular YouTuber channels. I personally have been using the various members of the Mindcrack server - I already linked to kurtjmac and VintageBeef and I also know that Zisteau also has VP9 encodings.

BTW, it would seems that the VP9 encodings don't come in until about 2 to 3 days or so after a video is uploaded, so you'll want to check the recent but not too recent videos, such as those that are a week old. This means a user that regularly uploads videos is more likely to have videos within that date-window, which is again why I've been using Mindcrack members as a test.

If you want a simple list of links to those Mindcrack YouTubers just use the right-sidebar on this subreddit:
http://www.reddit.com/r/mindcrack

zerowalker · 16th May 2014, 09:41

The thing is, i would like to find specific content, or rather "optimal content".

For example, most people will upload severely compressed videos.
These, in my view, are extremely bad to compare to, if the original video looks bad, you have no mean to know which one is better, and you can't tell how good it looks.

Now of course this is normal as it's not that common to have Fast enough internet to be able to upload at transparent bitrates.

However in this case of comparing VP9 on Youtube, i would like to have this, so i usually search on Lossless etc, cause it's either that, or my own videos which i know how it was encoded, and most are at CRF-12 and the like.
But sadly the only VP9 videos i got are very old ones, and that was before i got fast internet, and to make thing worse they are downsized, making it a bad choice to compare.

About the 2-3 days wait for VP9 encoding, i think it can differ, but probably 1 day is at the best (perhaps a bit lower or higher), but generally is probably at what you say 2-3 days.
Then it comes to the other ones, which simply seems to go after a certain view, for example, i got an 17k views video at 720p, that is only mp4, but 20k at 1200p is vp9 (but encoded at 1080p).
So my guess is that for "Not so famous?" channels, 20k may be the normal range in most cases.

Nintendo Maniac 64 · 16th May 2014, 09:58

Well, in terms of having a good quality source, I believe that kurtjmac's 1080p videos are uploaded with a whopping 20Mbps (about half the bitrate of a Blu-ray), so he's probably a safe bet. Also someone like ImAnderZEL is also likely safe since he uploads at 1440p and lives in Sweden which means crazy fast upload speeds for easy uploading of high quality encodes.

zerowalker · 16th May 2014, 10:02

Ah, as long as it was encoded normally with x264 at medium, it should look very good indeed.

As for 1440p, i guess you mean, if they can afford the resolution, bitrate should be affordable as well?

Sadly as i said before though, 1440p doesn't exist in VP9 as far as i know, i pray that it will get added though, downsizing is something i just can't stand.

Nintendo Maniac 64 · 16th May 2014, 10:08

My point is that if the guy is uploading at 1440p then the source quality should be good enough for 1080p.

Also I meant to say that kurtjmac uploads at 20Mbps for his 1080p videos, which isn't quite as uber but is still just half the bitrate of a Blu-ray.

zerowalker · 16th May 2014, 10:22

Not really sure what you mean with 1440p being an indicator towards the quality of 1080p.
But well, is his internet is fast, i doubt he care for making them small, at least i don't, if it takes 10min or 1 hour is nothing compared to 5-10 hours i had to wait before for some decent quality.

20mbps is okay, but only if it's done at good quality settings and encoder.

Would be interesting to see how vp9 would fare when it comes to handling the same bitrates as it's mp4 counterpart, cause now it only wins or loss cause of the huge bitrate difference.
Cause if it loss when the bitrate is the same, than that will be a huge disappointment, however i really doubt that it does, at least not overall, perhaps some scenes and stuff like that.

Have tried asking Youtube about vp9 and 1440p some time ago, but sadly they don't seem to answer, not sure if i write at the right place though, would really like to get in contact with some technical staff that could tell me the general idea.

Nintendo Maniac 64 · 16th May 2014, 11:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by zerowalker

Would be interesting to see how vp9 would fare when it comes to handling the same bitrates as it's mp4 counterpart, cause now it only wins or loss cause of the huge bitrate difference.

My F-Zero GX video has nearly identical filesize at 720p for DASH h.264 and VP9, and the VP9 version looks miles better. With the video streams by themselves the VP9 version is only a mere 3% larger in filesize (2.1MB).

zerowalker · 16th May 2014, 11:11

Really?

Great, that is what i want to see

Could you provide a comparison screenshot and shot it here?
Would be nice to see, and would be great for viewers of this forum who checks for simple "updates".

Nintendo Maniac 64 · 16th May 2014, 11:32

Personally I thought the difference was large enough that the videos would speak for themselves. Therefore you can surely guess for yourself which screenshots are which video format without me telling you.

Videos in question
Source & YouTube download mirror: https://www.mediafire.com/#ssmidj916dmw3
2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLxHjixnf3c
2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFy6yKkV-Jg

[Source]　MP4 AVC (6169kbps): Screenshot A ~ Screenshot B ~ Screenshot C

2014

DASH AVC (2112kbps): Screenshot A ~ Screenshot B ~ Screenshot C

fmt22 AVC (2886kbps): Screenshot A ~ Screenshot B ~ Screenshot C

WebM VP9 (2182kbps): Screenshot A ~ Screenshot B ~ Screenshot C

2015

DASH AVC (2125kbps): Screenshot A ~ Screenshot B ~ Screenshot C

fmt22 AVC (2894kbps): Screenshot A ~ Screenshot B ~ Screenshot C

WebM VP9 (1686kbps): Screenshot A ~ Screenshot B ~ Screenshot C

zerowalker · 16th May 2014, 21:28

Are they really the same bitrate?
The difference is beyond comparable, it looks like 1k bitrate vs 3-4k;S

Just a guess, but is the encoding below 2k?
Cause can't belive it looking like that at 2k+ for mp4.

I am guessing it looks like that all the time?
Cause i know Youtube encodes with h264 have a tendency of being blurry at time.

For example, everything can look sharp and clear (for it's bitrate) and you are all happy.
Then, mostly cause by a slight movement, everything will turn blurry for a while (even if they are standing still right after), and then it will go back.

I find it extremely annoying, and pretty sure it's a "bug?" in the encoder, which i really hope VP9 won't have at it's settings (and from my tests, it doesn't).

15th May 2014, 00:04	#26 \| Link
Nintendo Maniac 64 Registered User Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Northeast Ohio Posts: 447	I've edited in the download link for the MP4 I originally uploaded to YouTube into my previous post so that you can compare the uploaded file to the YouTube encoding. ----------------------- My videos only have that many views because the content of my videos are what Nintendo calls "evergreen", that is the videos in question constantly get a steady stream of views that build up over the years which makes a difference because most of my videos are 3 years old or more. Unlike people with lots of YouTube subscribers, my videos get very very few views in the beginning and then start to get more views per day over time as they place higher in search results. In other words, people search out the content the videos that I just happen to upload rather than follow me and watch my videos because I upload them. Last edited by Nintendo Maniac 64; 15th May 2014 at 00:13.

16th May 2014, 09:33	#31 \| Link
Nintendo Maniac 64 Registered User Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Northeast Ohio Posts: 447	If you want more VP9 videos just find some popular YouTuber channels. I personally have been using the various members of the Mindcrack server - I already linked to kurtjmac and VintageBeef and I also know that Zisteau also has VP9 encodings. BTW, it would seems that the VP9 encodings don't come in until about 2 to 3 days or so after a video is uploaded, so you'll want to check the recent but not too recent videos, such as those that are a week old. This means a user that regularly uploads videos is more likely to have videos within that date-window, which is again why I've been using Mindcrack members as a test. If you want a simple list of links to those Mindcrack YouTubers just use the right-sidebar on this subreddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/mindcrack Last edited by Nintendo Maniac 64; 16th May 2014 at 09:54.

16th May 2014, 09:58	#33 \| Link
Nintendo Maniac 64 Registered User Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Northeast Ohio Posts: 447	Well, in terms of having a good quality source, I believe that kurtjmac's 1080p videos are uploaded with a whopping 20Mbps (about half the bitrate of a Blu-ray), so he's probably a safe bet. Also someone like ImAnderZEL is also likely safe since he uploads at 1440p and lives in Sweden which means crazy fast upload speeds for easy uploading of high quality encodes. Last edited by Nintendo Maniac 64; 16th May 2014 at 10:15.

16th May 2014, 11:32	#39 \| Link
Nintendo Maniac 64 Registered User Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Northeast Ohio Posts: 447	Personally I thought the difference was large enough that the videos would speak for themselves. Therefore you can surely guess for yourself which screenshots are which video format without me telling you. Videos in question Source & YouTube download mirror: https://www.mediafire.com/#ssmidj916dmw3 2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLxHjixnf3c 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFy6yKkV-Jg [Source]　MP4 AVC (6169kbps): Screenshot A ~ Screenshot B ~ Screenshot C 2014 DASH AVC (2112kbps): Screenshot A ~ Screenshot B ~ Screenshot C fmt22 AVC (2886kbps): Screenshot A ~ Screenshot B ~ Screenshot C WebM VP9 (2182kbps): Screenshot A ~ Screenshot B ~ Screenshot C 2015 DASH AVC (2125kbps): Screenshot A ~ Screenshot B ~ Screenshot C fmt22 AVC (2894kbps): Screenshot A ~ Screenshot B ~ Screenshot C WebM VP9 (1686kbps): Screenshot A ~ Screenshot B ~ Screenshot C Last edited by Nintendo Maniac 64; 4th May 2015 at 05:33.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

14th May 2014, 23:11	#21 \| Link
zerowalker Registered User Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,121	The point in VP9 in my thought isn't to actually go head to head with HEVC, as in Reality, HEVC will most likely "Win the war". However, VP9 is something i am looking forward to on Youtube and similar sites, if it can bring better quality overall, even if it uses lower bitrate, i am happy. And it clearly seems like it will be able to do it in the future, as Youtube's settings on H264 are extreme, while the VP9 settings probably are not as flexible, leaving them at Okay settings. So in the end, I and probably others, hope for the Internet Videos to increase in Quality, and also Reduce in Size (I don't care about that however).

14th May 2014, 23:56	#25 \| Link
zerowalker Registered User Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,121	Nice, though it may be cause you seem to be rather famous on Youtube (compared to me you are Obama;P), so perhaps that has some influence in the System where it picks it's choices, just a guess though. My own Videos are non-VP9 except for 3, which have 20-70k views, everything else (have checked pretty many) should be h264 sadly.

16th May 2014, 07:13	#30 \| Link
zerowalker Registered User Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,121	I see, i guess it comes from the Tile decoding, and since they use different kinds, they clearly should differ. I am guessing x265 is primary using one core, and then using the second if it overflows, instead of using them in parallel. VP9 my be depending on the Tiles, and i have no idea how these work, but perhaps if one is taking a lot of space (or whatever they do), the assigned core will get loaded, while the other may chill, and this may be going up and down throughout the video. This pretty much render it useless to compare the CPU load on cores. Oh also, on Youtube, is there a way to search for VP9 videos? I know you can search (or at least you could) for Webm videos Only, but sadly everything is Webm now, and that's VP8 at 240/360p, making it meaningless filtering it down. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ghgbycqb92c Here is another VP9 clip where it's sick how the bitrate differs, VP9 get's less than half, making it looks much worse (still quite good if you think about the bitrate though). Don't understand why the bitrate is so Dynamic between clips, i thought they had a VBR at a certain range.

16th May 2014, 09:41	#32 \| Link
zerowalker Registered User Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,121	The thing is, i would like to find specific content, or rather "optimal content". For example, most people will upload severely compressed videos. These, in my view, are extremely bad to compare to, if the original video looks bad, you have no mean to know which one is better, and you can't tell how good it looks. Now of course this is normal as it's not that common to have Fast enough internet to be able to upload at transparent bitrates. However in this case of comparing VP9 on Youtube, i would like to have this, so i usually search on Lossless etc, cause it's either that, or my own videos which i know how it was encoded, and most are at CRF-12 and the like. But sadly the only VP9 videos i got are very old ones, and that was before i got fast internet, and to make thing worse they are downsized, making it a bad choice to compare. About the 2-3 days wait for VP9 encoding, i think it can differ, but probably 1 day is at the best (perhaps a bit lower or higher), but generally is probably at what you say 2-3 days. Then it comes to the other ones, which simply seems to go after a certain view, for example, i got an 17k views video at 720p, that is only mp4, but 20k at 1200p is vp9 (but encoded at 1080p). So my guess is that for "Not so famous?" channels, 20k may be the normal range in most cases.

16th May 2014, 10:02	#34 \| Link
zerowalker Registered User Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,121	Ah, as long as it was encoded normally with x264 at medium, it should look very good indeed. As for 1440p, i guess you mean, if they can afford the resolution, bitrate should be affordable as well? Sadly as i said before though, 1440p doesn't exist in VP9 as far as i know, i pray that it will get added though, downsizing is something i just can't stand.

16th May 2014, 10:08	#35 \| Link
Nintendo Maniac 64 Registered User Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Northeast Ohio Posts: 447	My point is that if the guy is uploading at 1440p then the source quality should be good enough for 1080p. Also I meant to say that kurtjmac uploads at 20Mbps for his 1080p videos, which isn't quite as uber but is still just half the bitrate of a Blu-ray.

16th May 2014, 10:22	#36 \| Link
zerowalker Registered User Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,121	Not really sure what you mean with 1440p being an indicator towards the quality of 1080p. But well, is his internet is fast, i doubt he care for making them small, at least i don't, if it takes 10min or 1 hour is nothing compared to 5-10 hours i had to wait before for some decent quality. 20mbps is okay, but only if it's done at good quality settings and encoder. Would be interesting to see how vp9 would fare when it comes to handling the same bitrates as it's mp4 counterpart, cause now it only wins or loss cause of the huge bitrate difference. Cause if it loss when the bitrate is the same, than that will be a huge disappointment, however i really doubt that it does, at least not overall, perhaps some scenes and stuff like that. Have tried asking Youtube about vp9 and 1440p some time ago, but sadly they don't seem to answer, not sure if i write at the right place though, would really like to get in contact with some technical staff that could tell me the general idea.

16th May 2014, 11:11	#38 \| Link
zerowalker Registered User Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,121	Really? Great, that is what i want to see Could you provide a comparison screenshot and shot it here? Would be nice to see, and would be great for viewers of this forum who checks for simple "updates".

16th May 2014, 21:28	#40 \| Link
zerowalker Registered User Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,121	Are they really the same bitrate? The difference is beyond comparable, it looks like 1k bitrate vs 3-4k;S Just a guess, but is the encoding below 2k? Cause can't belive it looking like that at 2k+ for mp4. I am guessing it looks like that all the time? Cause i know Youtube encodes with h264 have a tendency of being blurry at time. For example, everything can look sharp and clear (for it's bitrate) and you are all happy. Then, mostly cause by a slight movement, everything will turn blurry for a while (even if they are standing still right after), and then it will go back. I find it extremely annoying, and pretty sure it's a "bug?" in the encoder, which i really hope VP9 won't have at it's settings (and from my tests, it doesn't).